151–160 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Einstein didn't invent Relativity but he gets credit for describing it.....
So every discussion involving relativity has to mention Einstein even when it's not germane?
If Albert Einstein had a blog post about relativity, I would rather read that than someone’s interpretation....
The irony is that MongoDB brought this on themselves. They created a market for “like MongoDB, but reliable and secure” but were unable to deliver it themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's no intrinsic reason that the same company that gives away labour as OSS should also make the best complements to that OSS There are no guarantees that they will provide the best complements to their own product, but the common sense is that they will. From a marketing perspective, I think it makes complete sense, especially when selling to enterprise customers.
But they don’t. The best complement for server side software is often being able to do it reliably, globally, redundantly, managed, on demand, and cheaply. The only three companies that can do that reliably as far as most customers are concerned are Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see arguments like this a fair bit, and I'd like to explain why I'm not at all convinced. Your position is entirely predicated on the assumption that we must protect Open Source companies above the freedom of users/developers, which does not fit my beliefs on what FOSS exists to do. If MongoDB Corp goes away because everyone is using the AWS version, I would be sad to see an Open Source company end, and would feel…
Good points, and I may not have said this well, (and here's the obligatory but ) but... - I am not proposing to "protect OSS companies over the freedom of ...". Rather I am attempting to explore a way to provide a boundary between the entire OSS community (users/developers, etc) and those companies that attempt to exploit that community. As others have pointed out, there are many companies that make a contribution to…
When we choose to put our software out in the world under permissive licenses, we can't really turn around and complain when people make use of it in ways that are beneficial to them. On that basis, I object to the use of the word "exploit" in its negative sense.
Edit: I'd like to add one thought - there are different groups of people who could benefit by greater engagement from large corporate use of FOSS. Two that come to mind easily are the funded startups trying to find viable FOSS business models; I admire their optimism and their goals, and wish them luck. The second is individuals and small groups who tirelessly maintain incredibly important things that the rest of us take for granted and have to fight tooth and nail for every grant, every hour of their own spare time and every hour of their employer's time, to keep those things going for us. If I have to choose a group to care about supporting, it's definitely going to be the latter, for whom I have immense respect, undying gratitude, and sadly insignificant donations.
MongoDB is choosing a dinosaurs business model, and it's going to hurt them and their ecology. Mongo the org should play MongoDB like Google does Kubernetes, Golang, Chromium, etc. Have your people in there, funded, steering the project as 'FOSS' while you release actual products. Mongo dropped the ball by having no on-ramp product like GCPs Firebase. Their Cloud provider hate is just a flailing reaction to bad busin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was at a startup around 2k nodes in AWS. Bill was over 400K on average a month. When purchasing RI I saw 800K a month.
> When purchasing RI I saw 800K a month. I don't understand. Can you please clarify?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Parity is an open source license No, it isn't: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical A few issues: > 3. Contribute software you develop, deploy, monitor, or run with this software. That goes farther than the OSI, FSF, or DFSG allows, extending into software that is not in any way derived from the licensed software. It's also not obvious from the license that it allows private modifications that aren't distri…
license-review deja vu! To recite my views: Parity conforms to the Open Source Definition as written. "Is it open source?" and "Has OSI approved it?" are related, but distinct, questions, as acknowledged by OSI process. OSI-approved copyleft licenses already sweep broader than derivative works of the licensed software. OSI has approved copyleft terms requiring contribution back of private changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if blender is comparable at all. There's a lot more to a game engine than rendering, and AFAIK blender is not even intended for real time animation. Ogre is an open source 3d engine, although I don't know about its funding: https://www.ogre3d.org/
Blender has a full game engine included in it, although it looks like it's getting cut with the next release: https://www.blender.org/features/game-creation/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they don’t. The best complement for server side software is often being able to do it reliably, globally, redundantly, managed, on demand, and cheaply. The only three companies that can do that reliably as far as most customers are concerned are Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.
I agree, I think Docker is an example on how to almost completely fail to take advantage of being first to market. Redhat, AWS, Google and others were quicker to monetize on docker (the runtime) than Docker the company.
The flip side of that which eventually comes home to roost though is that it means the two are easily confused . If I'm a customer and I can download X or buy X from you, and the two are virtually identical, you better have a damn good story as to what your value proposition over and above the project is.
Red Hat actually arguably only just got themselves out of this. Originally there was just Red Hat Linux, regardless of whether you paid them a cent. The split into Fedora (Core) - the free distribution - and RHEL - the enterprise distribution with paid support subscriptions - is a not insignificant part of why the company still exists today. This transition was not without controversy, and arguably created the space into which Canonical and Ubuntu emerged, but it was a necessary step to disambiguate the project and the thing people actually pay for with its own value prop and messaging around it.
It's somewhat surprising that so many of these companies proclaim they want to be the next Red Hat, but ignore the prior art for how that came to be.
How would it be different if whole of MongoDB had a proprietary license? Amazon would do the same thing with the same effect. Open Source is a red herring here - the problem is with selling software when AWS sells “performance, scalability, and availability.”